head to head
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is variance, and it is a single point.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Solving procedurally generated corporate heists through precise resource and power management under escalating alarms.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
An original RPG system where engagement optimization and passive-stacking theory dominate hard-mode encounters.
Invisible, Inc. leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Pillars of Eternity leans Optimization (Pure Optimization).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Invisible, Inc.
Turn-based movement; no twitch demands whatsoever
Pillars of Eternity
Real-time-with-pause removes all twitch pressure from the player
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Invisible, Inc.
Corporate guards patrol on scripted timers; no adaptive opponent
Pillars of Eternity
All AI opponents use fixed scripted behaviour trees
Invisible, Inc. leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Invisible, Inc.
Procedural floor layouts and alarm escalation add significant run variance
Pillars of Eternity
Hidden enemy immunities and ability distributions require investigation
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Invisible, Inc.
Power allocation, agent pairing, and escape routing are the core puzzle
Pillars of Eternity
Per-encounter ability management and passive stacking define trial-of-iron mastery
A matching score does not mean a matching test. Two games can both sit at 10 on execution and demand completely different things of you - which is why the reasoning above matters more than the number beside it.